The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Endora on September 04, 2010, 12:23:06 AM
-
Posting this here to take it out of the shoutbox.
I'm sorry you don't like the English Language, but by definition homosexuality is an aberrant perversion. That's not being intolerant, it's being factually correct in the description.
This is obviously quite ludicrous, and I hope the rest of you at least realise that this is not quite how language works.
However the general notion that homosexuality is "Perverse" seems to result in circular reasoning, as does the proof for this gay agenda. And of course both are extremely insulting and demeaning towards homosexuals.
I can't stand the idea that people complain about the "gay agenda" while trying to push their own agenda to get the people themselves depicted as either unnatural or animalistic.
Even if someone's sexuality or politicising thereof does not make you comfortable, I still do not believe it is in an excuse to demean someone in that regard.
Saying homosexuality is perverse is "hateful" because it's trying to assign a negative term to something that could just as easily not be described that way. Some people INSIST on using a term that makes homosexuals look like animals. Especially when "perverse" by an equal measure could be used to describe anything sexually abnormal.
-
this is gay
-
Yep, "moral equivocation" is the leftists last weapon in attempting to force the normalization of homosexuality on society.
-
Endora, I don't care if gays marry. I am fairly alone in my view on this site but i don't feel the need to "school" people on their views. They have their own reason for believing the way they do and so do I.
You took the wrong approach when you came here. You were just another "enlightened" lib who thought she was going to tell us like it is, tell us how to act while at the same time doing the very thing to us, labeling a whole group in a negative way, the same thing you were accusing us of doing Do you ever stop to think that they use the language they do to get a rise out of DU or any other liberal who just so happen to come across this site?
You aren't the first and you won't be the last. We have had "you" in many forms, it gets tiresome sometimes. It kind of goes with the whole liberal elite "schtick", it's not new or exciting. In fact it is old.
-
Your opinion is duly noted.
But I still don't see why I should care.
-
How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg?
Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one, nor does calling homosexuality normal make it so.
-
Posting this here to take it out of the shoutbox.
This is obviously quite ludicrous, and I hope the rest of you at least realise that this is not quite how language works.
However the general notion that homosexuality is "Perverse" seems to result in circular reasoning, as does the proof for this gay agenda. And of course both are extremely insulting and demeaning towards homosexuals.
I can't stand the idea that people complain about the "gay agenda" while trying to push their own agenda to get the people themselves depicted as either unnatural or animalistic.
Even if someone's sexuality or politicising thereof does not make you comfortable, I still do not believe it is in an excuse to demean someone in that regard.
Saying homosexuality is perverse is "hateful" because it's trying to assign a negative term to something that could just as easily not be described that way. Some people INSIST on using a term that makes homosexuals look like animals. Especially when "perverse" by an equal measure could be used to describe anything sexually abnormal.
You-Queer-Anal-Sex-AIDS-Die, OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why do we care???????????????
We should NOT!!!
You dig your own fag grave, we happily bury you in it!
-
Posting this here to take it out of the shoutbox.
This is obviously quite ludicrous, and I hope the rest of you at least realise that this is not quite how language works.
However the general notion that homosexuality is "Perverse" seems to result in circular reasoning, as does the proof for this gay agenda. And of course both are extremely insulting and demeaning towards homosexuals.
I can't stand the idea that people complain about the "gay agenda" while trying to push their own agenda to get the people themselves depicted as either unnatural or animalistic.
Even if someone's sexuality or politicising thereof does not make you comfortable, I still do not believe it is in an excuse to demean someone in that regard.
Saying homosexuality is perverse is "hateful" because it's trying to assign a negative term to something that could just as easily not be described that way. Some people INSIST on using a term that makes homosexuals look like animals. Especially when "perverse" by an equal measure could be used to describe anything sexually abnormal.
Homosexuality is abberant and perverse because it meets the definition for both. The biological norms for a species determine what is "normal".
Homosexual behvior is not normal for the human species because it is in direct contravention with the norm for the species which is "sexual reproduction".
Throughout history homosexuality was also defined as a mental illness since phsychology became a recognized discipline. It wass determined by the APA that, such a label was "harmful" because it hurt the feelings of gays, so it no longer is considered by them as such.
Some of us simply care more about the good of mankind and the nation than we do about coddling gays to make them feel better about their affliction.
We were told in the seventies that we should be "tolerant" meaning no longer should gays be labeled as mentally ill.
We were then told in the eighties that we should be accepting, because gays were part of society and didn't need to be made to feel like outcasts.
Since the ninties we had the premise foisted upon us that we had to now cease to label gays in any way which would make them feel bad, because it was simply a lifestyle choice with no real impact on society.
Here we are in the 2000's having come full circle where now anyone who simply recognizes homosexuality for what it is, is to now be labeled as, bigoted, homophobic and intolerant because supposedly they are "born that way" in spite of the fact that even though 90% of the human genome has been unwraveled there's as yet nothing to indicate that a gay gene exists.
To say that homosexuality is aberrant, abnormal, or perverse is merely being honest, it's not homophobic, and it's not "gay bashing".
-
You-Queer-Anal-Sex-AIDS-Die, OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why do we care???????????????
We should NOT!!!
You dig your own fag grave, we happily bury you in it!
Sounds about right to me.
-
this is gay
:bwah:
-
Saying homosexuality is perverse is "hateful" because it's trying to assign a negative term to something that could just as easily not be described that way. Some people INSIST on using a term that makes homosexuals look like animals. Especially when "perverse" by an equal measure could be used to describe anything sexually abnormal.
I have no dog in this fight.
I believe that each of us are responsible for our own actions. I have enough trouble trying to live a good life myself, while trying to raise my children to do the same, without caring how other people choose to live their lives--that is, until their choices negatively impact my own.
The line that struck me in your post the most is bolded. If we only define ourselves by our sexual appetites--or indeed, any appetites--then, yes, we are acting like animals.
-
copying and pasting my post from fight club thread:
You are basing your comparison on sexuality to race because I assume your belief is that gay people are born that way -- it's genetic.
You will find a great deal of Americans do not believe that, and they would represent both parties. I live in MA, which I think we can both agree is a blue state. It is also a predominantly Catholic state. Former Governor Romney attempted to place the issue of gay marriage on the ballot so that this (at that time) bluest of blue states could have their voice heard. Our state legislature blocked it as they knew what the vote would be.
Like it or not, homosexuality is heavily intertwined with religion. It is not as simple as race discrimination, which is black and white (no pun intended). The left likes to paint this issue as a conservative one, however they would be wrong. It is a religious one. California has demonstrated that quite clearly.
I wish the topic was removed from the political arena on the federal level as it has no place there IMHO.
-
Yep, "moral equivocation" is the leftists last weapon in attempting to force the normalization of homosexuality on society.
That and activist judges.
-
Posting this here to take it out of the shoutbox.
This is obviously quite ludicrous, and I hope the rest of you at least realise that this is not quite how language works.
However the general notion that homosexuality is "Perverse" seems to result in circular reasoning, as does the proof for this gay agenda. And of course both are extremely insulting and demeaning towards homosexuals.
I can't stand the idea that people complain about the "gay agenda" while trying to push their own agenda to get the people themselves depicted as either unnatural or animalistic.
Even if someone's sexuality or politicising thereof does not make you comfortable, I still do not believe it is in an excuse to demean someone in that regard.
Saying homosexuality is perverse is "hateful" because it's trying to assign a negative term to something that could just as easily not be described that way. Some people INSIST on using a term that makes homosexuals look like animals. Especially when "perverse" by an equal measure could be used to describe anything sexually abnormal.
If someone wants to copulate with a dog I will say it is perverse and the majority of society will agree,as such so it is with homosexualty regardless of whether you like it or not.
In time that may change on both examples but it will be by concensus and not demand so live with it.
-
I guess I'm just an old pervert......I still like women.
-
I guess I'm just an old pervert......I still like women.
Question here about born gays.
If you take say 20 people 10 male and 10 females that claim to be born gay why will you find that the majority of them have natural born children.?
Why did the majority live a heterosexual life style and then wake up one day to realise they were in fact born gay ?
I can understand the virgin gay folks but the breeders that change teams in the 7 inning must have a darn good reason.
-
Posting this here to take it out of the shoutbox.
This is obviously quite ludicrous, and I hope the rest of you at least realise that this is not quite how language works.
However the general notion that homosexuality is "Perverse" seems to result in circular reasoning, as does the proof for this gay agenda. And of course both are extremely insulting and demeaning towards homosexuals.
I can't stand the idea that people complain about the "gay agenda" while trying to push their own agenda to get the people themselves depicted as either unnatural or animalistic.
Even if someone's sexuality or politicising thereof does not make you comfortable, I still do not believe it is in an excuse to demean someone in that regard.
Saying homosexuality is perverse is "hateful" because it's trying to assign a negative term to something that could just as easily not be described that way. Some people INSIST on using a term that makes homosexuals look like animals. Especially when "perverse" by an equal measure could be used to describe anything sexually abnormal.
I really do not understand this need you on the left have to demand complete and unquestioning agreement on every issue.
Like BEG, I frankly do not care who my neighbor takes to bed (as long as it's another consenting adult, mind you), and while I recognize that there those here in the Cave who may have a different opinion on the matter, I don't feel compelled to piss and moan until they agree with my own.
Perhaps instead of railing for equality of outcome, the left would be better off joining the conservatives in striving for equality of opportunity. We can debate the definition of opportunity without so much polarization if you folks would cease passing judgment on anyone who disagrees with you.
-
I really do not understand this need you on the left have to demand complete and unquestioning agreement on every issue.
It's their way of showing the world how tolerant and accepting they are.
-
I can understand the virgin gay folks but the breeders that change teams in the 7 inning must have a darn good reason.
I wish I could answer that, as my Mom is one of those. I think for her, it was a feeling of non-threatening companionship. Her two marriages were a bit, uh, well, violent.
She does have a "union" with her partner of over 20 years. No call for real marriage, ever, from her. The only complaint, if you can call it that, she has had with how she is treated given her relationship status, would be when she was in the hospital. Her partner lied and said she was her sister, just so she could see her. That has since been resolved, with legal documents, that now either can be visited by either, regardless of family status. Which is pretty important, as they live far away, and they both have serious medical conditions.
For the record, although she will profess to be independent in her voting, she votes Republican more often than not.
-
It's their way of showing the world how tolerant and accepting they are.
Precisely, which is the inherent paradox of the progressive movement -- they're tolerant and accepting, but only of those who agree with them. If you dissent, it isn't necessary to tolerate or accept you.
By the very definition of tolerance, they are the least tolerant of all. The intellectual gymnastics these people must go through is staggering.
-
I wish I could answer that, as my Mom is one of those. I think for her, it was a feeling of non-threatening companionship. Her two marriages were a bit, uh, well, violent.
She does have a "union" with her partner of over 20 years. No call for real marriage, ever, from her. The only complaint, if you can call it that, she has had with how she is treated given her relationship status, would be when she was in the hospital. Her partner lied and said she was her sister, just so she could see her. That has since been resolved, with legal documents, that now either can be visited by either, regardless of family status. Which is pretty important, as they live far away, and they both have serious medical conditions.
For the record, although she will profess to be independent in her voting, she votes Republican more often than not.
"I wish I could answer that, as my Mom is one of those. I think for her, it was a feeling of non-threatening companionship. Her two marriages were a bit, uh, well, violent."
Well said, and as an aside . one of the few virgin Gay woman I met once turned to me and asked what I thought of a coworker that came to work every few weeks with black eyes and black and blue .
My first thought was that she may just be clumsy like me and or needed glasses. It never occurred to me that our coworker was being beaten up.
One day she came to work a mess, she was even questioned by the bosses as to what happend to her. She told them and us that she had been in a car accident.
My Gay friend walked about smiling every time we bumped into that woman and I finally asked the gay woman why she was smiling.
Her answer rocked me off my feet, she told me to give it a year, that woman was a Sister in the making.
-
"I wish I could answer that, as my Mom is one of those. I think for her, it was a feeling of non-threatening companionship. Her two marriages were a bit, uh, well, violent."
Well said, and as an aside . one of the few virgin Gay woman I met once turned to me and asked what I thought of a coworker that came to work every few weeks with black eyes and black and blue .
My first thought was that she may just be clumsy like me and or needed glasses. It never occurred to me that our coworker was being beaten up.
One day she came to work a mess, she was even questioned by the bosses as to what happend to her. She told them and us that she had been in a car accident.
My Gay friend walked about smiling every time we bumped into that woman and I finally asked the gay woman why she was smiling.
Her answer rocked me off my feet, she told me to give it a year, that woman was a Sister in the making.
Vesta, your lesbian friend was just applying the saying, "Give time time." That's all.
-
"I wish I could answer that, as my Mom is one of those. I think for her, it was a feeling of non-threatening companionship. Her two marriages were a bit, uh, well, violent."
Well said, and as an aside . one of the few virgin Gay woman I met once turned to me and asked what I thought of a coworker that came to work every few weeks with black eyes and black and blue .
My first thought was that she may just be clumsy like me and or needed glasses. It never occurred to me that our coworker was being beaten up.
One day she came to work a mess, she was even questioned by the bosses as to what happend to her. She told them and us that she had been in a car accident.
My Gay friend walked about smiling every time we bumped into that woman and I finally asked the gay woman why she was smiling.
Her answer rocked me off my feet, she told me to give it a year, that woman was a Sister in the making.
She got her ass kicked!!!
She made a pubLICK excuse to justify it.
She had a chance to run, she did not!
She got beat up again, she deserved it due to her stupidity!!!
Zero pity here...
-
Posting this here to take it out of the shoutbox.
This is obviously quite ludicrous, and I hope the rest of you at least realise that this is not quite how language works.
However the general notion that homosexuality is "Perverse" seems to result in circular reasoning, as does the proof for this gay agenda. And of course both are extremely insulting and demeaning towards homosexuals.
I can't stand the idea that people complain about the "gay agenda" while trying to push their own agenda to get the people themselves depicted as either unnatural or animalistic.
Even if someone's sexuality or politicising thereof does not make you comfortable, I still do not believe it is in an excuse to demean someone in that regard.
Saying homosexuality is perverse is "hateful" because it's trying to assign a negative term to something that could just as easily not be described that way. Some people INSIST on using a term that makes homosexuals look like animals. Especially when "perverse" by an equal measure could be used to describe anything sexually abnormal.
Politicizing language is hateful and a crime against humanity and reason. Politicizing language is the worst kind of tyranny as it seeks to create false realities for unwitting people to act upon in good faith.
Look at the eco-terrorist we had here in the states this past week, why did he go bonkers? Because he believed the false realities created by Algore and a fictional talking monkey.
Words mean things. And if you prefer they did not because they make people like you feel politically uncomfortable, well, la di dah! I much rather an uncomfortable leftist who is at least marginally in touch with reality than a suicidally psychotic one such as James Lee.
And yes, I am equating your political ideology with mental illness because it is.
-
My opinion on homosexuality? I think most are born that way, and for some like the instances cited I think it's a personal choice, I believe in civil unions but not the use of the term marriage. Progressives need to get over themselves and realize that people have their own opinions and because their opinion might be different than yours and mine when it comes to certain issues it doesn't mean the other person is wrong, and all you succeed in doing when you start throwing the terms racist, homophobic, Islamophobic around etc. is to alienate people like me.
-
Your opinion is duly noted.
But I still don't see why I should care.
What he said!!
I don't give a f*** what YOU think I should call them. F*** the political correctness bull crap. Another reason why America is failing. :bird: :censored:
-
Another mindless rant by a butt plugger. Corn holers need to try Gorilla Glue as a lubricant.
-
I would suggest that a small percentage of gays have a genetic defect that "makes" them "gay". I would further suggest that the majority of them are either just plain hedonistic or are psychologically unbalanced due to one reason or another. (e.g.: childhood abuse, spousal abuse, etc.) With few exceptions, homosexuality IS an aberrant behavior. Anybody that wants to suggest otherwise are simply fooling themselves or are attempting to manipulate matters towards their line of thinking. Religion aside, it's just NOT biologically NORMAL!!
-
I've known a lot of gays and lesbians over the years.
Across the board, IF you can get them to talk honestly about it, you find that their preference was induced one way or another by sexual trauma/molestation at an early age, or in the case of most lesbians, after a series of abusive relationships with men.
I found that with the majority of the men that claim to have been "born that way" they were very effeminate males physically and emotionally.
None of that equates to making "Gay Marriage" a right or an entitlement.
Be it a choice, genetic defect, or mental illness it is not natural, normal, nor does it in any way equate to a normal heterosexual relationship.
-
The whole gay thing is a well-worn topic that frequently comes to bear because it's one of those issues that's controversial.
I don't mind discussing the issue at all - but the kind of shit that sets me off is this:
Endora:
This is obviously quite ludicrous, and I hope the rest of you at least realise that this is not quite how language works.
Who the **** died and made you Language Queen? William Safire, you ain't. Get off your high horse before you get dragged off.
However the general notion that homosexuality is "Perverse" seems to result in circular reasoning, as does the proof for this gay agenda. And of course both are extremely insulting and demeaning towards homosexuals.
Circular reasoning? WTF? Put down the crack pipe and back away slowly. You can do it. As to what is "extremely insulting and demeaning towards homosexuals", do you have a point somewhere in that statement?
I can't stand the idea that people complain about the "gay agenda" while trying to push their own agenda to get the people themselves depicted as either unnatural or animalistic.
Another pointless statement. Pick up the phone and call the British version of 1-800-waaaaaah. I don't see too many people overly concerned about what you "can't stand".
Even if someone's sexuality or politicising thereof does not make you comfortable, I still do not believe it is in an excuse to demean someone in that regard.
Here's a news flash for you, honey. It ain't personal. Really, it isn't. It's simply complete and total rejection of holding homosexuality as some kind of legitimate biological function. It's a lifestyle, chosen imho, that deserves nothing more than what is directed toward any other minority. In other words, a person's "right" to pack fudge is not being impugned. They have that right. When their behavior in packing said fudge is considered abhorrent and disgusting by normal people, you can expect that behavior to enjoy a certain level of distaste. You've got a certain number of people who pick the boogers out of their nose and sample them. That behavior is equally disgusting. It's really hard to consider somebody who behaves that way as anything other than, well, disgusting.
Saying homosexuality is perverse is "hateful" because it's trying to assign a negative term to something that could just as easily not be described that way. Some people INSIST on using a term that makes homosexuals look like animals. Especially when "perverse" by an equal measure could be used to describe anything sexually abnormal.
Sometimes you just have to call them like you see them.
In short, take your pompous preaching elsewhere. I'm not sure you've got the creds to lay your "opinion" out there for admiration and contemplation by many people on this site - not that you don't have the right to do so.
Bull in a china shop ring a bell?
-
blahblahblahblahblah....
Quit jacking the bandwidth, fag.
-
Quit jacking the bandwidth, fag.
She made the OP to start shit and hasn't been back since. Classic definition of a troll. I would ban her.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/tucker13/special/7b7aab90.jpg)
-
She made the OP to start shit and hasn't been back since. Classic definition of a troll. I would ban her.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/tucker13/special/7b7aab90.jpg)
She looks pregnant....must be a turkey baster baby.
-
She looks pregnant....must be a turkey baster baby.
More than likely. :lmao: :rotf:
Especially if the OP is trying to convince us to call teh gheys something else besides homosexuals, because it "hurts their feelings"!!! Must of have done some "turkey basting"! :lmao:
-
More than likely. :lmao: :rotf:
Especially if the OP is trying to convince us to call teh gheys something else besides homosexuals, because it "hurts their feelings"!!! Must of have done some "turkey basting"! :lmao:
A "master baster," eh?
-
A "master baster," eh?
HA HA!!! :cheersmate: :cheersmate:
-
Posting this here to take it out of the shoutbox.
This is obviously quite ludicrous, and I hope the rest of you at least realise that this is not quite how language works.
However the general notion that homosexuality is "Perverse" seems to result in circular reasoning, as does the proof for this gay agenda. And of course both are extremely insulting and demeaning towards homosexuals.
I can't stand the idea that people complain about the "gay agenda" while trying to push their own agenda to get the people themselves depicted as either unnatural or animalistic.
Even if someone's sexuality or politicising thereof does not make you comfortable, I still do not believe it is in an excuse to demean someone in that regard.
Saying homosexuality is perverse is "hateful" because it's trying to assign a negative term to something that could just as easily not be described that way. Some people INSIST on using a term that makes homosexuals look like animals. Especially when "perverse" by an equal measure could be used to describe anything sexually abnormal.
What adults do in private is their own business.
When those adults insist on teaching their morals, their beliefs, and their sexual behaviors to our children, it's no longer their business.
When those adults insist on filing court cases to force the country to change the definition of an institution that is thousands of years old and has been proven to be the best situation for raising children and building civilization, thereby forcing their moral actions and opinions upon the entire country, they deserve to be called a lot worse than "perverse."
They are, in fact, actively working toward sexualizing children and destroying what is left of the foundation of our society. After the last few decades of experimenting with "free love" (an oxymoron, given the cost of STD's alone), the single-parent family, easy divorce, and the destruction of education, don't you think we've gone far enough in the "progressive" direction? It's time to turn around and take things back 50 or 60 years, rebuild real families, and put those private lives back behind doors.
-
(http://www.tvcrazy.net/tvclassics/wallpaper/pages/bewitched/endora.jpg)
:evillaugh:
-
My opinion on homosexuality? I think most are born that way, and for some like the instances cited I think it's a personal choice, I believe in civil unions but not the use of the term marriage. Progressives need to get over themselves and realize that people have their own opinions and because their opinion might be different than yours and mine when it comes to certain issues it doesn't mean the other person is wrong, and all you succeed in doing when you start throwing the terms racist, homophobic, Islamophobic around etc. is to alienate people like me.
AIDS...It was implemented for a reason...
-
When I meet a new person I do no say "hello I am heterosexual"
Time and time again it loses when voted on. (gay marriage). A civil rights issue it is not. You cannot chose your skin color, you can choose your religion and sex preference.
-
AIDS...It was implemented for a reason...
The only flaw in that argument though is that AIDS originated in Chimpanzee's and evolved and spread to humans possibly from humans eating the Chimpanzee's.
-
Endora, I don't care if gays marry. I am fairly alone in my view on this site but i don't feel the need to "school" people on their views. They have their own reason for believing the way they do and so do I.
Not quite. ;)
You took the wrong approach when you came here. You were just another "enlightened" lib who thought she was going to tell us like it is, tell us how to act while at the same time doing the very thing to us, labeling a whole group in a negative way, the same thing you were accusing us of doing Do you ever stop to think that they use the language they do to get a rise out of DU or any other liberal who just so happen to come across this site?
You aren't the first and you won't be the last. We have had "you" in many forms, it gets tiresome sometimes. It kind of goes with the whole liberal elite "schtick", it's not new or exciting. In fact it is old.
Agreed on the rest, ma'am.
However the general notion that homosexuality is "Perverse" seems to result in circular reasoning, as does the proof for this gay agenda. And of course both are extremely insulting and demeaning towards homosexuals.
Ah....come again? The notion that...? No. There is nothing circular about the notion that pulling one's penis out of another's anus with clumps on it is PERVERSE! That's just common knowlege. There is nothing normal; nothing reasonable; nothing that could be considered sane about wanting to do that. Oh, this guy loves this guy enough to get the ippity flop dip. Okkkay... As far as I'm concerned, it basically boils down to the "If it tastes good, eat it. If it feels good, do it" mentallity.Of course, homosexuals are free to do whatever the hell they want. I just don't want to keep hearing the constant bitching about AIDS when their decisions in life ASSURED that they would contract it.
-
This used to be my signature:
"Besides, there is really no such thing as homophobia. It is a false concept created by the gay community to smear the healthy aversion to a unnatural and disgusting deviancy."
Take this thread back to your gay boards and smoke it.
-
.... As far as I'm concerned, it basically boils down to the "If it tastes good, eat it. If it feels good, do it" mentallity.
Classic definition of hedonism.
Of course, homosexuals are free to do whatever the hell they want. I just don't want to keep hearing the constant bitching about AIDS when their decisions in life ASSURED that they would contract it.
And just WHO gets to pay for their indiscretions?? Aids started out hard and fast in the homosexual community. Then, it hit the IV drug user community. Then it spread to the heterosexual community via the bisexuals and whore mongers.
-
I'm going to say my peace on this issue once.
I am straight. I like women. Many of the things I have done heterosexually are considered sins.
I am not going to sit on the judgement of any other persons sexual activities between consenting adults.
-
However the general notion that homosexuality is "Perverse" seems to result in circular reasoning, as does the proof for this gay agenda. And of course both are extremely insulting and demeaning towards homosexuals.
Ah....come again? The notion that...? No. There is nothing circular about the notion that pulling one's penis out of another's anus with clumps on it is PERVERSE! That's just common knowlege. There is nothing normal; nothing reasonable; nothing that could be considered sane about wanting to do that. Oh, this guy loves this guy enough to get the ippity flop dip. Okkkay... As far as I'm concerned, it basically boils down to the "If it tastes good, eat it. If it feels good, do it" mentallity.Of course, homosexuals are free to do whatever the hell they want. I just don't want to keep hearing the constant bitching about AIDS when their decisions in life ASSURED that they would contract it.
That last quote you have that you replied to I didn't say. Who are you responding to?
-
I changed it around, I believe when I noticed the mistake. It should be right now. What I said there is replying to what the scrunt troll said beginning with "However."
Sorry about that.
Classic definition of hedonism.
Though, I think the pain may very well outweigh the pleasure later on down the road.
And just WHO gets to pay for their indiscretions?? Aids started out hard and fast in the homosexual community. Then, it hit the IV drug user community. Then it spread to the heterosexual community via the bisexuals and whore mongers.
We do, obviously, but I'm a smoker, so I don't want to be the pot calling the kettle black here. Although, I don't think what I do is NEAR as nasty, and I also give money back to the economy by buying my tobacco products.
-
I smoke and enjoy a few beers at the American Legion.
Old testament wise, I'd have been stoned a long time ago for many offenses involving women.
It is their lives. I think they have the right to pick who they want to spend their time with. I know a gay couple that has been together for 20 years. I'm lucky if I can keep things together with a woman for a year.
Who the hell am I to judge.
-
Many here are perfectly willing to tolerate it as a private matter, as long as just consenting adults are involved; however, there is a huge gulf between that and endorsing it as completely normal and proper by bestowing all the legalities of marriage on such a relationship. Most here are emphatically not willing to take that very large additional step.
-
Many here are perfectly willing to tolerate it as a private matter, as long as just consenting adults are involved; however, there is a huge gulf between that and endorsing it as completely normal and proper by bestowing all the legalities of marriage on such a relationship. Most here are emphatically not willing to take that very large additional step.
BINGO!!! :hi5: :cheersmate:
-
Saying homosexuality is perverse is "hateful" because it's trying to assign a negative term to something that could just as easily not be described that way. Some people INSIST on using a term that makes homosexuals look like animals. Especially when "perverse" by an equal measure could be used to describe anything sexually abnormal.
Really?
http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/index.php
Eye bleach required.
-
Really?
http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/index.php
Eye bleach required.
Anywhere else, those folks would be arrested for public indecency and probably convicted. This would make many of them "sex offenders". I don't care what anybody says, that stuff just ain't right to be exhibited in public.
Many here are perfectly willing to tolerate it as a private matter, as long as just consenting adults are involved; however, there is a huge gulf between that and endorsing it as completely normal and proper by bestowing all the legalities of marriage on such a relationship. Most here are emphatically not willing to take that very large additional step.
EXACTLY!! I don't condone or accept the GLBT lifestyle, but as long as they don't ask for special rights and don't try to cram their sick & perversive lifestyle down my throat, so to say, they can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. Like Eupher, I'm not real keen on Public Displays of Affection. There is a time and a place for everything.
-
Anywhere else, those folks would be arrested for public indecency and probably convicted. This would make many of them "sex offenders". I don't care what anybody says, that stuff just ain't right to be exhibited in public.
I'd rather the pic just be described to me. I'm afraid.
So....so afraid. :rotf:
-
I smoke and enjoy a few beers at the American Legion.
Old testament wise, I'd have been stoned a long time ago for many offenses involving women.
It is their lives. I think they have the right to pick who they want to spend their time with. I know a gay couple that has been together for 20 years. I'm lucky if I can keep things together with a woman for a year.
Who the hell am I to judge.
You certainly seem willing to judge us.
I myself have NOT sinned with women. I don't need to judge gays, God already has. And He is the one who called it perverse.
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
The Word is clear. Unrepentant (practicing) homosexuals who die in their sin, GO TO HELL. They can go to church, they can call themselves a Christian...but if they are practicing homosexuals when they die--they will spend eternity in Hell.
This passage lists a number of sins that offer the same consequences for unrepentance. An unrepentant thief goes straight to hell as well.
BUT, no other sin listed in that passage has a number of followers out to forcibly legalize their sin-calling sin a civil right.
When Jesus stopped the stoning of the adulteress, He told her to. "Go and sin no more." Repentance doesn't mean perfection, or a lack of struggle...The sin must stop! If a gay or lesbian isn't even attempting to stop the sin-They will burn: end of story.
There you go. God made the judgment. I'm just echoing Him.
But even non-Christians know there is something inherently wrong with a gay lifestyle. All across the earth the majority of people rightly condemn homosexuality.
-
I like Peter more than Paul, I like Jesus the most. He seemed to be silent on the matter and given it was during a Roman occupation of Israel.
I'm assuming it was going on...alot.
-
You certainly seem willing to judge us.
So many in the "tolerant" group not only feel free to judge, they even feel free to pre-judge... without ever understanding our position. ::)
-
So many in the "tolerant" group not only feel free to judge, they even feel free to pre-judge... without ever understanding our position. ::)
I understand it, I disagree. There is a difference between disagreeing with you and judging you. You are more than free to have any beliefs you want religiously, I'm sure there are things we agree on.
I don't think I've screamed homophobe or any other slur. I've simply stated I disagree.
-
I like Peter more than Paul, I like Jesus the most. He seemed to be silent on the matter and given it was during a Roman occupation of Israel.
I'm assuming it was going on...alot.
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
..
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
Mar 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
-
I understand it, I disagree. There is a difference between disagreeing with you and judging you. You are more than free to have any beliefs you want religiously, I'm sure there are things we agree on.
I don't think I've screamed homophobe or any other slur. I've simply stated I disagree.
This is true. Disagreement is fine. Rare, on your side of the fence, but fine. :-)
-
What adults do in private is their own business.
When those adults insist on teaching their morals, their beliefs, and their sexual behaviors to our children, it's no longer their business.
When those adults insist on filing court cases to force the country to change the definition of an institution that is thousands of years old and has been proven to be the best situation for raising children and building civilization, thereby forcing their moral actions and opinions upon the entire country, they deserve to be called a lot worse than "perverse."
They are, in fact, actively working toward sexualizing children and destroying what is left of the foundation of our society. After the last few decades of experimenting with "free love" (an oxymoron, given the cost of STD's alone), the single-parent family, easy divorce, and the destruction of education, don't you think we've gone far enough in the "progressive" direction? It's time to turn around and take things back 50 or 60 years, rebuild real families, and put those private lives back behind doors.
Ms Smith, :heart:
Very well spoken if I may say so myself.
However, we cannot go back 50-60 years ago and find life any different from today except that the darkest actions were done in private, no help for the victim, life was not as idyllic as we want to think.
In the 1500-to say today the city's are a spawning ground of dispair. The City's were a horror for the majority of people--one of the reasons hundreds of thousands went West and faced the hunger the heat, the unknown and never knew when a Native or horse thief would shoot them.
Today the city's have not changed, except for the infrastructure. Now the city's have sewage and running semi-clean water. The people trapped in these big city's have no way to get out and move onto virgin land.
When I was a all most teen the small town I lived in began bring kids from city to spend the summer. I could never understand the logic of this. Kids that have never fished in a brook, gone sailing, did what we took for granted, these kids ate 3 meals a day and had fresh vegetables at every meal, most of the host family's were farmers and the kids were around animals that were not RATS for the first time in their lives.
After 90 days of sleeping on a real bed with clean sheets and washed clothing, the kids had to go back to the city and sleep on bare floors and listen to their mother turning tricks in the night.
I thought then as I do now, those poor kids were akin to a mistreated dog that is given a foster home for a year or so loved and cared for, then is returned to the people that mistreated them.
Louis Armstrong in his biography tells what growing up in New Orleans was like for him as a kid. If you can find his book I strongly suggest you read it. Reading that book explained why white folks got the name Honkey.
-
This is true. Disagreement is fine. Rare, on your side of the fence, but fine. :-)
One day we will find out who was right or who was wrong. Neither of us will make that decision.
I'll trust God to sort this out. As for myself, I'll focus on my own shortcomings as a man and my temptations in my personal life, not others.
-
One day we will find out who was right or who was wrong. Neither of us will make that decision. I'll trust God to sort this out.
You are correct. He will.
-
I like Peter more than Paul, I like Jesus the most. He seemed to be silent on the matter and given it was during a Roman occupation of Israel.
I'm assuming it was going on...alot.
Nice cop out.
But the fact remains you can't pick and choose what you want to believe and expect God to respect that. The Bible is all or nothing. Accept it or reject it...and deal with the consequences.
-
So much to answer to,....
Issa....I'm glad that your mother has found happiness and contentment. Many people...who have never experienced the type of violent behavior a man can do to a woman - I'm not even talking about "stranger" rape - do not understand or are willing to even consider why...a woman would turn to another woman. While they are most fortunate to have never experienced the violence, neither can they comprehend - nor relate - to what the woman has experienced.
Jake....many many heterosexual consenting adults have "sinned" or broken local/state laws while engaging in sexual activity...they just don't know it.
In Little Rock(AR) if a man and woman flirt with each other on the streets they could be jailed for 30 days.
In Logan County(CO), it is illegal for a man to kiss a woman while she is asleep.
In Hartford(CT) a man can't kiss his wife on Sundays.
It's against the law to dream about another man's wife or cow(FL).
A man with a moustache can't kiss a woman in public.
Kisses can't last for more than 5 minutes. (IA)
In Portland, it is illegal for men to tickle women under the chin with feather dusters. (ME)
In Halethorpe(MD) it's illegal to kiss another person for more than 1 second.
In Salem even a married couple can't sleep together in the nude in rented rooms.(MA)
http://informationcentral0.tripod.com/id7.html
I daresay....most of us, by a certain age, may have done many of these that I mentioned...and there are lots more that are even more explicit and intimate.
Personally, what I do in my bedroom with my other half...is not only no one else's business, it also is not for them to judge whether or not, it may be a "sin". It's not their "right" to determine if it was a sin against God..
It is sad that many....who consider themselves to be "good Christians"...also consider themselves to be the morals judge and jury for everyone else. They aren't. They know in their hearts they aren't - if they are the "true Christians" that they profess to be. Yet, it doesn't stop them from making their judgement to be fact...for them.
Ah well....it is obvious that we Conservatives are not all in lock-step....
-
So much to answer to,....
Issa....I'm glad that your mother has found happiness and contentment. Many people...who have never experienced the type of violent behavior a man can do to a woman - I'm not even talking about "stranger" rape - do not understand or are willing to even consider why...a woman would turn to another woman. While they are most fortunate to have never experienced the violence, neither can they comprehend - nor relate - to what the woman has experienced.
Jake....many many heterosexual consenting adults have "sinned" or broken local/state laws while engaging in sexual activity...they just don't know it.
I daresay....most of us, by a certain age, may have done many of these that I mentioned...and there are lots more that are even more explicit and intimate.
Personally, what I do in my bedroom with my other half...is not only no one else's business, it also is not for them to judge whether or not, it may be a "sin". It's not their "right" to determine if it was a sin against God..
It is sad that many....who consider themselves to be "good Christians"...also consider themselves to be the morals judge and jury for everyone else. They aren't. They know in their hearts they aren't - if they are the "true Christians" that they profess to be. Yet, it doesn't stop them from making their judgement to be fact...for them.
Ah well....it is obvious that we Conservatives are not all in lock-step....
When I first moved to Virginia , it was illegal for an unmarried couple to live together.
-
So much to answer to,....
Issa....I'm glad that your mother has found happiness and contentment. Many people...who have never experienced the type of violent behavior a man can do to a woman - I'm not even talking about "stranger" rape - do not understand or are willing to even consider why...a woman would turn to another woman. While they are most fortunate to have never experienced the violence, neither can they comprehend - nor relate - to what the woman has experienced.
Jake....many many heterosexual consenting adults have "sinned" or broken local/state laws while engaging in sexual activity...they just don't know it.
I daresay....most of us, by a certain age, may have done many of these that I mentioned...and there are lots more that are even more explicit and intimate.
Personally, what I do in my bedroom with my other half...is not only no one else's business, it also is not for them to judge whether or not, it may be a "sin". It's not their "right" to determine if it was a sin against God..
It is sad that many....who consider themselves to be "good Christians"...also consider themselves to be the morals judge and jury for everyone else. They aren't. They know in their hearts they aren't - if they are the "true Christians" that they profess to be. Yet, it doesn't stop them from making their judgement to be fact...for them.
Ah well....it is obvious that we Conservatives are not all in lock-step....
Good Christians know Who the Judge is...and care little enough about the opinion of "the world" to do their best to warn the lost and show them the way home. It is, after all, not the world we are commanded to please.
-
Ms Smith, :heart:
Very well spoken if I may say so myself.
However, we cannot go back 50-60 years ago and find life any different from today except that the darkest actions were done in private, no help for the victim, life was not as idyllic as we want to think.
In the 1500-to say today the city's are a spawning ground of dispair. The City's were a horror for the majority of people--one of the reasons hundreds of thousands went West and faced the hunger the heat, the unknown and never knew when a Native or horse thief would shoot them.
Today the city's have not changed, except for the infrastructure. Now the city's have sewage and running semi-clean water. The people trapped in these big city's have no way to get out and move onto virgin land.
When I was a all most teen the small town I lived in began bring kids from city to spend the summer. I could never understand the logic of this. Kids that have never fished in a brook, gone sailing, did what we took for granted, these kids ate 3 meals a day and had fresh vegetables at every meal, most of the host family's were farmers and the kids were around animals that were not RATS for the first time in their lives.
After 90 days of sleeping on a real bed with clean sheets and washed clothing, the kids had to go back to the city and sleep on bare floors and listen to their mother turning tricks in the night.
I thought then as I do now, those poor kids were akin to a mistreated dog that is given a foster home for a year or so loved and cared for, then is returned to the people that mistreated them.
Louis Armstrong in his biography tells what growing up in New Orleans was like for him as a kid. If you can find his book I strongly suggest you read it. Reading that book explained why white folks got the name Honkey.
Until Christ comes back to rule, there will always be misery. It's not limited to any race, or country. It's OUR job to reduce it as much as possible. With that in mind, the facts are that children are less likely to live in poverty if they have a real family...both of their natural parents in their home. They are less likely to drop out of school, to get in trouble, to drink or take drugs if their parents maintain a family. This won't take care of anywhere near all misery, but it's a good starting point.
The last few decades of easy divorce, little pressure to avoid premarital sex and pregnancy, no stigma attached to the man that dumps his "baby-mama" and moves on to the next foolish girl, and government assistance to make this entire lifestyle attractive to many, has led us where we are, massive gang violence, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, domestic abuse...and a society packed full of uneducated and uncivilized young people...especially men.
Things were not perfect 50 years ago, but they were better. If we could get the family back to that point, we'd have a foundation for repairing society instead of this nightmare mess the liberal elite have made of our country with the help of the foolish and gullible young adults that believe the "experts" when they say that kids shouldn't be spanked and that they're better off with Mom than in a home that has a less than perfect marriage at it's head.
-
Issa....I'm glad that your mother has found happiness and contentment. Many people...who have never experienced the type of violent behavior a man can do to a woman - I'm not even talking about "stranger" rape - do not understand or are willing to even consider why...a woman would turn to another woman. While they are most fortunate to have never experienced the violence, neither can they comprehend - nor relate - to what the woman has experienced.
Deb, thanks for that, and just call me Tots, or Deb, that is ok. :-) Mom made her decision after I was all growed up, and to be quite frank, I am just happy she has a comforting relationship for her end years.....my friends comment that they (Mom and her Partner) act like the Aunts on the Waltons, hiding the still, and they do.
All the rest of it? God will judge us all on our day. I don't sweat it. (Although there are some that say I should.)
-
Deb, thanks for that, and just call me Tots, or Deb, that is ok. :-) Mom made her decision after I was all growed up, and to be quite frank, I am just happy she has a comforting relationship for her end years.....my friends comment that they (Mom and her Partner) act like the Aunts on the Waltons, hiding the still, and they do.
All the rest of it? God will judge us all on our day. I don't sweat it. (Although there are some that say I should.)
Why do we think of sex when two people of the same sex live together ?
No one thinks anything when two brothers or two sisters live together, why think it nasty when the people are not related.?
Spinsters and their unmarried brother may live together ---who is going to call sex into that.?------woman may give up a life to care for elderly father,--is something going on here.?
It makes me wonder how sex got involved in living situitions in the first place. Is it impossible to believe that two people of the same sex can live together with NO SEX.?
Hell look at the married couples that go 20 years with no sex.
As a girl I bonded with other girls and had we been older become their room mate. I cannot imagine wanting to have sex with any of them.
We were innocent back then, thought nothing of holding hands and a big hug. You see the schools had not taught us about the sexual life style.
We bonded and loved our friends never knowing that some day someone would come along and call our actions into question. This was as far from sex as one can get and we innocents were free to demonstrate our care and pure love for each other.
Same went as we grew older and had our first boyfriend, he became a special friend, but at that age sex was a mystery and not one to investigate. Here I have us up to 12 -13 years old.
Today kids of any age come in the house and there is Daddy sitting on the couch drinking a beer, a joint in his hand and a hard core pono on the TV.
The daddy does not have to turn off the TV, the kids have allready seen the video last year in the 3 rd. grade in school.
-
Why do we think of sex when two people of the same sex live together ?
It's done on purpose as a way of breaking down society.
-
Why do we think of sex when two people of the same sex live together ?
No one thinks anything when two brothers or two sisters live together, why think it nasty when the people are not related.?
Spinsters and their unmarried brother may live together ---who is going to call sex into that.?------woman may give up a life to care for elderly father,--is something going on here.?
It makes me wonder how sex got involved in living situitions in the first place. Is it impossible to believe that two people of the same sex can live together with NO SEX.?
Hell look at the married couples that go 20 years with no sex.
As a girl I bonded with other girls and had we been older become their room mate. I cannot imagine wanting to have sex with any of them.
We were innocent back then, thought nothing of holding hands and a big hug. You see the schools had not taught us about the sexual life style.
We bonded and loved our friends never knowing that some day someone would come along and call our actions into question. This was as far from sex as one can get and we innocents were free to demonstrate our care and pure love for each other.
Same went as we grew older and had our first boyfriend, he became a special friend, but at that age sex was a mystery and not one to investigate. Here I have us up to 12 -13 years old.
Today kids of any age come in the house and there is Daddy sitting on the couch drinking a beer, a joint in his hand and a hard core pono on the TV.
The daddy does not have to turn off the TV, the kids have allready seen the video last year in the 3 rd. grade in school.
Good points to remember/ponder.
Ever since Bill Clinton announced a BJ was not sex - hell's bells - kids have permission. Apparently it starts in grade school now. I cannot imagine.
-
Good points to remember/ponder.
Ever since Bill Clinton announced a BJ was not sex - hell's bells - kids have permission. Apparently it starts in grade school now. I cannot imagine.
I was so naive....I was a freshman in college, before I even knew what a BJ was!!!
Remember the book...Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex, But Were Afraid to Ask? I think when it first came out, you had to be 18 or 21 to buy it (I was 17)...one of the girls on my dorm floor somehow got one. A group of us would pile into a dorm room, and take turns reading it out loud to the others. I learned a lot that first semester.. :naughty:....sadly not enough for my Calculus and Chemistry grades.... :thatsright:
-
I was so naive....I was a freshman in college, before I even knew what a BJ was!!!
Remember the book...Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex, But Were Afraid to Ask? I think when it first came out, you had to be 18 or 21 to buy it (I was 17)...one of the girls on my dorm floor somehow got one. A group of us would pile into a dorm room, and take turns reading it out loud to the others. I learned a lot that first semester.. :naughty:....sadly not enough for my Calculus and Chemistry grades.... :thatsright:
For Pete's sake - we're the old farts now! :rotf:
Can you just imagine that! :tongue:
I know you'd be a fun gal pal for sure. A few of my friends gathered together at a local watering hole-in-the wall - out in the boonies place tonight, and I cannot even post the naughty pics I took! I would be banned for sure!.
Come on over - We're 40-60's age and we had the packed place howling. I do have pics and videos, but they'd kill me. :rotf:
-
Why do we think of sex when two people of the same sex live together ?
Not all people do. This is apples and oranges.
No one thinks anything when two brothers or two sisters live together, why think it nasty when the people are not related.?
Probably because those people aren't forcing their sexual appetites down other peoples throats??
Spinsters and their unmarried brother may live together ---who is going to call sex into that.?------woman may give up a life to care for elderly father,--is something going on here.?
It makes me wonder how sex got involved in living situitions in the first place. Is it impossible to believe that two people of the same sex can live together with NO SEX.?
Hell look at the married couples that go 20 years with no sex.
No, it's not impossible, but....... are those people asking to "marry" each other?? Are they exhibiting their immoral acts in public?? Again, apples and oranges.
Today kids of any age come in the house and there is Daddy sitting on the couch drinking a beer, a joint in his hand and a hard core pono on the TV.
I don't think that is as rampant as you allege. Are there isolated incidents of this happening?? Sure